MOVIE VS. BOOK (SPOILER ALERT)

First topic message reminder :

so how many of you think that the movie STORY was better than the book??

The book, The Lightning Thief, was made a while ago, so i consider it not "modernized". I admitt its an awesome book and very addicting. i think rick did an excelent job on it.

The movie though came out years later, so they eventually had to change some things due to the change in time. the movie STORY/PLOT i think was better.

post wat u think and vote on the poll!

the book was definately better. the movie needed to have ares and kronos to set up the plot for the next movies.

Well there is a couple of simple reasons:

1. the film is BASED upon the book, not a complete conversion
2. the films script is rewritten by a script writer
3. the film has a little thing called a budget - special effects cost a lot
4. books are ALWAYS better than the film

veni-vidi-vici wrote:Well there is a couple of simple reasons:

1. the film is BASED upon the book, not a complete conversion
2. the films script is rewritten by a script writer
3. the film has a little thing called a budget - special effects cost a lot
4. books are ALWAYS better than the film

Not always just look at LOTR

Lord of the Rings had been around for 60 years (to this year i believe). It is one of the most read books of all time, and is considered in society as one of the books you must read at some time in your life. Not to mention pretty much everyone involved in production would have read it and respected its original version to alter the plot line too much.

So with such a history LOTR had a pretty much guaranteed mass audience and is therefore more profitable to stick to the original story line with expensive graphics and appease the audience who have basically all read the series and know it very well: far more profitable than to majorly affect the storyline and get bad reviews + small profit.

And point 4. is still valid, The books are always better than the films as they exploit your imagination rather than just your eyes.

sorry for the little deviation off topic but I hate people making general comments and I prefer specifics.

PJO TLF is a book which has not been around very long, it has limited audiences and is targeted at a specific younger age group. This limits an adult script writers interest in it and the will for any investors to want to spend too much money on it. Thereby encouraging the story line to be altered into a compact and more suitable to film action.

note: I am not trying to insult PJO series, because i love it, merely pointing out why it is not made true to the storyline and therefore why the book is better.

LOTR??

Lord Of The Rings, best books ever to have been written.

veni-vidi-vici wrote:Lord of the Rings had been around for 60 years (to this year i believe). It is one of the most read books of all time, and is considered in society as one of the books you must read at some time in your life. Not to mention pretty much everyone involved in production would have read it and respected its original version to alter the plot line too much.

So with such a history LOTR had a pretty much guaranteed mass audience and is therefore more profitable to stick to the original story line with expensive graphics and appease the audience who have basically all read the series and know it very well: far more profitable than to majorly affect the storyline and get bad reviews + small profit.

And point 4. is still valid, The books are always better than the films as they exploit your imagination rather than just your eyes.

sorry for the little deviation off topic but I hate people making general comments and I prefer specifics.

PJO TLF is a book which has not been around very long, it has limited audiences and is targeted at a specific younger age group. This limits an adult script writers interest in it and the will for any investors to want to spend too much money on it. Thereby encouraging the story line to be altered into a compact and more suitable to film action.

note: I am not trying to insult PJO series, because i love it, merely pointing out why it is not made true to the storyline and therefore why the book is better.

That is totally not true, the books were an insult to literature, and the movies were amazing, the movies were like a blessing from heaven and the books were like a gift from hell.

OMG HOW COULD YOU!

What on earth is wrong with the books?

veni-vidi-vici wrote:OMG HOW COULD YOU!

What on earth is wrong with the books?

Everything, the organization of the storyline is horrible, the plot is OK only when you read it on Wikipedia, and the whole book just pissed me off. The movies on the other hand were completely opposite, epic.

You clearly have no love for books. Typical of most modern youths (And before you think I'm some old guy, I'm only 16) no appreciation for the actual novel just the action movies.

Books are vastly superior to films.

- A film is someone else interpretation of book (usually) but occationaly some random script that was written as pure script

- A book allows you to develop your own ideas, it links you much closer to the story line and is far more complete and intricate than most films which follow a dull and predictable storyline with the bad guys always loosing

So simply put: a book challenges your brain, a film just damages your eyes.

It was a law in America I believe until like 30 years ago that no film could have the bad guys win, ever.

veni-vidi-vici wrote:You clearly have no love for books. Typical of most modern youths (And before you think I'm some old guy, I'm only 16) no appreciation for the actual novel just the action movies.

Books are vastly superior to films.

- A film is someone else interpretation of book (usually) but occationaly some random script that was written as pure script

- A book allows you to develop your own ideas, it links you much closer to the story line and is far more complete and intricate than most films which follow a dull and predictable storyline with the bad guys always loosing

So simply put: a book challenges your brain, a film just damages your eyes.

It was a law in America I believe until like 30 years ago that no film could have the bad guys win, ever.

I take that as an insult. I have a taste for books, I've read some of the greatest works of all time and enjoyed them, just not that one.

Fair enough, just your general attitude appears to be that films are always better than the books. It's a feeling I've felt in several of your posts. If I am wrong fair enough.

veni-vidi-vici wrote:Fair enough, just your general attitude appears to be that films are always better than the books. It's a feeling I've felt in several of your posts. If I am wrong fair enough.

Not always but most of the time, an exception is HP, cause the books are just of a such superior quality to compare, I'm not saying the movies aren't good but the books are just so much better.

Yeah, i think that the book version was better, it's more detaild in the book, and the characters were almost adults. That ruins making movies of all the other books because in the first one he's 12 and the second 13 etc. And finaly in the fifth one he's 16 and tha big prophecie is unfolded. And in the movie Kronos is not even mentioned, and he's the main villan in the series!!!